Recipient

Interweave Textiles Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 3 Apr 2022•Latest report 3 Apr 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
3

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
2stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Interweave Textiles Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Mid Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Emma Pring · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Emma Pring, who had a history of serious mental health difficulties and previous suicide attempts, was admitted to hospital for treatment. While wearing anti-████████ clothing and under observations, she used components of the clothing to form a ligature and died from asphyxiation caused by self-application of a ████████. The principal concern was that older versions of the clothing remained in circulation and could be used for self-harm, despite the product changes made after Emma’s death.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Interweave Textiles Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continued circulation of clothing products usable to form ligatures

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) Further evidence was given that some of the products like those Emma wore are still in circulation and whilst Cygnet are aware and possibly NHS Providers via Cygnet reporting the issue to them there remain risks that users of those products may use them in the same way. This risk may be increased following the publication of the circumstances of Emma’s death. (5) At the inquest evidence from your company indicated that you were still considering what, if any, action may be required regarding the items manufactured prior to the changes which remain in circulation. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Interweave Textiles Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    False reassurance from self-harm-reducing clothing that does not eliminate self-harm risk

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Evidence given at the inquest revealed that Emma was wearing items of clothing manufactured by your company which were made in such a way as to reduce the risk of using the clothing to self harm. The evidence heard that the clothing was commonly referred to as “anti████████ clothing”, or “safety clothing” as well as “seclusion wear”. It was clear from the evidence that the product was made to reduce the risk of self harm and could not eliminate the risk and that wearers still required supervision. However, in practice it may have provided some reassurance to staff that ████████ could not be made from the clothing. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Interweave Textiles Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to determine action for pre-change products remaining in circulation

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) Further evidence was given that some of the products like those Emma wore are still in circulation and whilst Cygnet are aware and possibly NHS Providers via Cygnet reporting the issue to them there remain risks that users of those products may use them in the same way. This risk may be increased following the publication of the circumstances of Emma’s death. (5) At the inquest evidence from your company indicated that you were still considering what, if any, action may be required regarding the items manufactured prior to the changes which remain in circulation. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Notify customers about ligature risks and safe inspection, replacement and supervised use of seclusion garments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our client has already (and by 19 May 2022) completed taking steps directly to notify in writing those customers who had been supplied with products of the same sort as were worn by Emma Pring. Our client expressly referred to the destruction of the waistband for use as a ligature, and has recommended that customers check their current stock of seclusion garments, especially garments supplied before April 2021, for any damage. Customers were also been reminded that all garments (whenever they were supplied) should be checked on each occasion before they are provided to service users, and that any seclusion garments that are showing significant wear and tear or any damage should be disposed of and replaced. Customers have also been reminded that garments should only be used in combination with supervision.”

    Source location

    Response from Ramsdens Solicitors
    Page 1 · response
    Published 26 April 2022

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026